* Finalist for the 2018 Vincent Lemieux Best PhD thesis Award

* 2018 APSA Comparative Democratization Best Fieldwork Award (Honorable Mention)

In my first book project, I examine the impact of long-running civil wars on democratic orientations, particularly on trust—defined as the belief that others will not deliberately harm your interest. As I argued in my co-authored essay in Civil Wars, prior research under-theorized how war impacts trust, and existing empirical findings were mixed regarding the circumstances under which conflict decreases trust. Without a thorough understanding of how trust is transformed, peacebuilding efforts risk missing a critical component. I argue that the geographic and ethnic focus of the war affects the way that trust is undermined. Wars without a clearly defined ethnic or geographical focus (unrestricted wars) erode generalized trust more than restricted civil wars. In restricted civil wars (e.g. ethnic territorial conflicts), outgroup trust declines more visibly. To build and refine my theory, I examine the Kurdish insurgency in Turkey as a case of a restricted war (Kurdistan Workers’ Party—the PKK against the Turkish state, 1984-) and the Maoist insurgency in Peru as a case of an unrestricted war (the Shining Path against the Peruvian state, 1980-2000). I conducted more than 60 interviews and 18 focus groups in each country, and I analyzed comparative historical and macro-sociological materials. I also tested the main hypotheses derived from my theory using time-series data (1948-2009) from 169 countries. The quantitative testing confirms that unrestricted wars decrease political and generalized trust, while in unrestricted wars the decline is not statistically significant. The book proposal is currently under review.

This paper examines how civil wars transform social trust by comparing restricted (e.g. ethnic territorial) and unrestricted (e.g. non-ethnic ideological) conflicts. Using 60 interviews and 18 focus groups conducted in Turkey and Peru, alongside time-series data from 169 countries (1948–2009), it shows that unrestricted wars severely erode generalized trust, whereas restricted wars primarily damage outgroup trust. The findings underscore how war dynamics shape long-term societal trust.

Download the paper here.

This study explores whether emphasizing shared displacement histories can improve attitudes toward refugees. Based on survey experiments conducted in Turkey, Cyprus, and Greece (2021–2022), it finds that such interventions often fail to reduce bias and can even backfire for individuals with personal displacement histories. The results highlight the limitations of light-touch perspective-taking interventions for fostering empathy.

Download the paper here.

This research investigates how genetic ancestry tests (GATs) influence self-reported ethnic identities. Using a randomized controlled trial with White Americans, it shows that participants often revise their identities based on GAT results, adopting new ethnicities if the reported percentages are high while abandoning previously claimed ones if contradicted. The findings illuminate the dynamic interplay between genetic information and identity formation.

Download the paper here.

This study examines the impact of frequent casual contact between host communities and refugees on perceived group threat. Using survey data collected in immigrant-receiving countries, it finds that casual contact often exacerbates threat perceptions unless accompanied by mechanisms like increased empathy or reduced anxiety. The paper calls for a critical reevaluation of the conditions under which intergroup contact reduces prejudice.

Download the paper here.

This article critiques how exposure to violence is measured in conflict research. Drawing on cross-national research, it argues that inconsistent indicators yield divergent findings and proposes adopting comprehensive indices for greater reliability. The study demonstrates the importance of refining measurement tools in conflict studies.

Download the paper here.

Based on insights from fieldwork in Turkey and Peru, this paper highlights the value of focus groups in conflict research. By combining focus groups with interviews, the study demonstrates how this mixed method approach captures diverse perspectives and improves the reliability of retrospective narratives.

Download the paper here.

This study examines how rising casualties influence public support for civil war. Using a longitudinal dataset from Turkey, it challenges the dominant finding that casualties reduce support, showing that in civil wars, casualties are often seen as investments, reinforcing public commitment to ongoing conflict.

Download the paper here.

This paper introduces and validates the Genetic Essentialism Scale for Race (GESR), a tool to measure beliefs in genetic determinism of racial differences. Using survey data from over 800 participants, the study develops and tests the scale, demonstrating its reliability and utility in examining how genetic essentialism influences perceptions of racial identity.

Download the paper here.

This paper examines how water quality, access, and material conditions influence participatory governance in Ghana and South Africa. Using comparative qualitative data, including interviews and field observations, the study highlights how water materialities shape community engagement and governance practices. The findings emphasize the importance of addressing infrastructural challenges to foster meaningful participation and improve water management outcomes.

Download the paper here.

Co-authored with Edana Beauvais, this study explores how social group membership influences classroom participation. Drawing on survey data from political science classrooms, the research finds that students’ participation is shaped by perceptions of group identity and belonging. The paper offers insights into how instructors can create more inclusive learning environments to encourage equitable participation across diverse student groups.

Download the paper here.

This paper analyzes Turkey’s forums as spaces of deliberation and civic engagement through the theoretical lenses of Hannah Arendt and Jürgen Habermas. It argues that these forums represent attempts to reclaim the public sphere, fostering democratic practices and collective action. The study offers a critical perspective on the potential and limitations of forums in Turkey’s sociopolitical context.

Download the paper here.